the CARES Act. Ala. Ass’n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 760, 764. Reviewing a challenge to
the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s extension of the 120-day
eviction moratorium past its statutory expiration date, id. at 760, the Court noted that the
moratorium “intrudes into an area that is the particular domain of state law: the landlord-
tenant relationship.” Id. at 764. Though the specific issue in Alabama Ass’n of Realtors
concerns an agency’s (lack of) authority to extend the 120-day moratorium, the Court had
no reservation about applying a clear statement rule to the CARES Act.
All states require notice prior to commencing the eviction process. Suppl. Br. of
Pet’r Andre Knight at 14 n.1 (citing 49 state eviction provisions). Accepting Knight’s
reading of § 9058(c) would override the eviction regimes not only for Washington but
every state and would impose a permanent federal notice requirement for all types of
evictions. But for Knight’s interpretation, these eviction regimes would apply to
landlords receiving federal funds. 5 Indeed, as Knight stated at oral argument, a broad
5
Knight responds that “there is no presumption in favor of state power” in areas where Congress
has a “‘significant federal presence,’” such as subsidized housing. Pet’r Andre Knight’s Suppl.
Br. at 7 (regarding the clear statement rule (quoting United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 108,
120 S. Ct. 1135, 146 L. Ed. 2d 69 (2000))). Knight argues that Congress has a significant
presence of regulating housing through the spending clause and application of the clear statement
18
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Hous. Auth. v. Knight, No. 102905-5